MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326699676 · doi:10.18647/3075/jjs-2012

The variants of 4Q (Reworked) Pentateuch: a comprehensive list of the textual variants in 4Q158, 4Q364-7 in biblical sequence

2012· article· en· W2326699676 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew B. Perrin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Jewish Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorahSection (typography)Sequence (biology)LiteratureBiblical studiesOrder (exchange)Hebrew BibleInformation retrievalLinguisticsComputer sciencePhilosophyArtJudaismTheologyBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents all of the semantic, lexical, and grammatical textual variants contained in the group of scrolls known as 4Q Reworked Pentateuch (4Q158, 4Q364-7) according to the traditional verse order of the Masoretic Text. The variants for 4Q158 are based on a fresh treatment of the text from DJD V, while readings for 4Q364-7 are drawn from DJD XIII and are updated where necessary. Introducing the list of variants is a brief case study on the methods of low-level scribal intervention operating in 4Q365. In this way, the article presents the most up-to-date information on variant readings in 4QRP as well as offers a primer on the types of interpretive interchanges evident in a cross-section of smaller variant readings. For the first time this self-contained resource unifies all of the data for the 4QRP manuscripts in one place and will serve as a tool for text-critical and exegetical studies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Jewish StudiesSame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207